Tag Archives: Google+

With hundreds of tweets flying at break-neck pace, yesterday’s #ogChat saw a very spirited discussion on the Internet’s movement toward a walled garden model. In case you missed the conversation, you’re in luck! Here’s a recap of yesterday’s #ogChat.

The full list of participants included:

Naomi Caietti, Administrative Office of the Courts Department of Business Oversight (@califgirl232)

In response to: @JohnFontana Q1 Eyeballs proved worthless; souls can make you some real money. #ogChat

@charleneli: @Dana_Gardner re: Meta data — once you join a community, there has to be a level of trust. If they respect data, people will trust. #ogChat

@AlanWebber#ogChat Q1 – People feel safer inside the “Walls” but don’t realize what they are loosing

Q2 How has this trend affected privacy/control? Do users have enough control over their IDs/content within #walledgarden networks? #ogChat

This was a hot topic as participants debated the tradeoffs between great content and privacy controls. Questions of where data was used and leaked to also emerged, as walled gardens are known to have backdoors.

@AlanWebber: But do people understand what they are giving up inside the walls? #ogChat

@TheTonyBradley: Q2 — Yes and no. Users have more control than they’re aware of, but for many its too complex and cumbersome to manage properly.#ogchat

@jim_hietala: #ogChat Q2 privacy and control trade offs need to be made more obvious, visible

Q3 What has been the role of social and #mobile in developing #walledgardens? Have they accelerated this trend? #ogChat

Everyone agreed that social and mobile catalyzed the formation of walled garden networks. Many also gave a nod to location as a nascent driver.

@jaycross: Q3 Mobile adds your location to potential violations of privacy. It’s like being under surveillance. Not very far along yet. #ogChat

@charleneli: Q3: Mobile apps make it easier to access, reinforcing behavior. But also enables new connections a la Zynga that can escape #ogChat

@subreyes94: #ogChatQ3 They have accelerated the always-inside the club. The walls have risen to keep info inside not keep people out.

@Technodad: @subreyes94 Humans are social, want to belong to community & be in touch with others “in the group”. Will pay admission fee of info. #ogChat

Q4 Can people use the internet today without joining a walled garden network? What does this say about the current web? #ogChat

There were a lot of parallels drawn between real and virtual worlds. It was interesting to see that walled gardens provided a sense of exclusivity that human seek out by nature. It was also interesting to see a generational gap emerge as many participants cited their parents as not being a part of a walled garden network.

@TheTonyBradley: Q4 — You can, the question is “would you want to?” You can still shop Amazon or get directions from Mapquest. #ogchat

@zdFYRashid: Q4 people can use the internet without joining a walled garden, but they don’t want to play where no one is. #ogchat

@JohnFontana: Q4 I believe we are headed to a time when people will buy back their anonymity. That is the next social biz. #ogchat

Q5 Is there any way to reconcile the ideals of the early web with the need for companies to own information about users? #ogChat

While walled gardens have started to emerge, the consumerization of the Internet and social media has really driven user participation and empowered users to create content within these walled gardens.

@charleneli:Q5: Early Web optimism was less about being open more about participation. B4 you needed to know HTML. Now it’s fill in a box. #ogChat

@Dana_Gardner: Q5 Early web was more a one-way street, info to a user. Now it’s a mix-master of social goo. No one knows what the goo is, tho. #ogChat

@AlanWebber:Q5, Once there are too many walls, people will begin to look on to the next (virtual) world. Happening already #ogChat

Q6 What #Web2.0 lessons learned should be implemented into the next iteration of the web? How to fix this? #ogChat

Identity was the most common topic with the sixth and final question. Single sign-on, personal identities on mobile phones/passports and privacy seemed to be the biggest issues facing the next iteration of the web.

@Technodad: Q6 Common identity is a key – need portable, mutually-recognized IDs that can be used for access control of shared info. #ogChat

@JohnFontana: Q6 Users want to be digital. Give them ways to do that safely and privately if so desired. #ogChat

@TheTonyBradley: Q6 — Single ID has pros and cons. Convenient to login everywhere with FB credentials, but also a security Achilles heel.#ogchat

Thank you to all the participants who made this such a great discussion!

Patricia Donovan is Vice President, Membership & Events, at The Open Group and a member of its executive management team. In this role she is involved in determining the company’s strategic direction and policy as well as the overall management of that business area. Patricia joined The Open Group in 1988 and has played a key role in the organization’s evolution, development and growth since then. She also oversees the company’s marketing, conferences and member meetings. She is based in the U.S.

On July 10, The Open Group will host a special tweet jam to examine “walled gardens” and the effect of social media networks on the web.

The World Wide Web was originally intended to be an open platform – from the early forums for programmers exchanging code or listservs to today’s daily photo blogs or corporate website providing product information. Information was meant to be free and available for public consumption, meaning any link on the World Wide Web could be accessed by anyone, anytime.

With the advent of Web 2.0, content no longer roams free. Increasingly, private companies and social networks, such as Facebook and Google Plus, have realized the value of controlling information and restricting the once open flow of the Internet. A link to a Facebook profile, for example, doesn’t lead to a member’s Facebook page, but instead to an invitation to join Facebook – a closed, member-only network where one must be inside the network to derive any benefit. And once one joins one of these “walled gardens,” personal content is shared in ways that are uncontrollable by the user.

As web data continues to explode and more and more information about Internet usage is gathered across sites, the pressure to “grow the gardens” with more personal data and content will continue to increase.

Please join us on July 10 at 9:00 a.m. PT/12:00 p.m. ET/5:00 p.m. BST for a tweet jam that will discuss the future of the web as it relates to information flow, identity management and privacy in the context of “walled garden” networks such as Facebook and Google. We welcome Open Group members and interested participants from all backgrounds to join the session and interact with our panel of experts, including:

Below is a list of the questions that will be addressed during the hour-long discussion:

In the context of the World Wide Web, why has there been a shift from the open Internet to portals, apps and walled environments?

How has this trend affected privacy and control? Do users have enough control over their IDs and content within walled garden networks?

What has been the role of social and mobile in developing walled gardens? Have they accelerated this trend?

Can people use the Internet today without joining a walled garden network? What does this say about the current web?

Is there any way to reconcile the ideals of the early web with the need for companies to own information about users?

What Web 2.0 lessons learned should be implemented into the next iteration of the web?

And for those of you who are unfamiliar with tweet jams, here is some background information:

What Is a Tweet Jam?

A tweet jam is a one hour “discussion” hosted on Twitter. The purpose of the tweet jam is to share knowledge and answer questions on a chosen topic. Each tweet jam is led by a moderator (Dana Gardner) and a dedicated group of experts to keep the discussion flowing. The public (or anyone using Twitter interested in the topic) is free (and encouraged!) to join the discussion.

Participation Guidance

Whether you’re a newbie or veteran Twitter user, here are a few tips to keep in mind:

Have your first #ogChat tweet be a self-introduction: name, affiliation, occupation.

Start all other tweets with the question number you’re responding to and the #ogChat hashtag.

Sample: “Q4 People can still use the Internet without joining a walled garden, but their content exposure would be extremely limited #ogChat”

Please refrain from product or service promotions. The goal of a tweet jam is to encourage an exchange of knowledge and stimulate discussion.

While this is a professional get-together, we don’t have to be stiff! Informality will not be an issue!

A tweet jam is akin to a public forum, panel discussion or Town Hall meeting – let’s be focused and thoughtful.

If you have any questions prior to the event, please direct them to Rod McLeod (rmcleod at bateman-group dot com). We anticipate a lively chat on July 10 and hope you will be able to join!

Patricia Donovan is Vice President, Membership & Events, at The Open Group and a member of its executive management team. In this role she is involved in determining the company’s strategic direction and policy as well as the overall management of that business area. Patricia joined The Open Group in 1988 and has played a key role in the organization’s evolution, development and growth since then. She also oversees the company’s marketing, conferences and member meetings. She is based in the US.

Even a social media lightweight like me could hardly avoid getting caught up in the Google+ hype. It got me thinking about the rate and unpredictability of change in the web world, and the effect on large enterprises of phenomena originating in the consumer and small business market.

The concept of the enterprise is experiencing a change – maybe a radical one. The role of technology is also changing (not for the first time). New business models are developing which, whilst not technological in nature, would never have been thought of without the technology developments of the last few years. Other business models, around for a bit longer and not technological in nature are pushing technology in a different direction. Business models themselves are subject to increasingly frequent and not always predictable change. What does this mean for the practice of enterprise architecture?

Back to Google+. A few years ago, when Web 2.0 was the buzzword and everyone conveniently forgot that the web actually started out as a vehicle for user-generated content and collaboration (sorry, had to get that off my chest), there was quite a battery of social media providers all with their own specializations: Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Plaxo, Flickr and a whole bunch of sites for gamers and metal fans, etc. In Holland, where I live, we had our own, very successful variant on Facebook. Had. In the period since then there’s been increasing consolidation with Facebook developing an astonishing hegemony. I’ll admit that I assumed that’s how it would stay until a new Zuckerberg came up with a totally new game changer. But now here comes Google with a new spin on a familiar story and they look set to chew a big chunk out of the market. Perhaps even the enterprise market.

What’s this have to do with enterprises? Well, the fact is that everyone in the enterprise is out there exchanging ideas via Twitter and LinkedIn and Facebook and Google+ (and whatever specialized sites they might use) and they’re even using those media to tell the rest of the enterprise that they published something internally – because otherwise no one will notice. And then there’s co-creation, which is becoming increasingly common – even in large enterprises. So like it or not, the enterprise is being irreversibly extended out into the blogosphere. And that means that the enterprise is far more exposed to the trends and rapid shifts in the world outside its own boundaries than it has ever been before.

In the meantime, a lot of other stuff has been changing for the enterprise. Extended Enterprise, the idea that an enterprise’s business processes (some of them) are performed by third parties, who themselves are part of a broad value network, is pretty much established fact for many large and medium-sized organizations. And there are unexpected new business models emerging. Think about app stores. I can’t see inside Steve Jobs’ head but I suspect the app store was developed to support the iPhone – not the other way around. Just like iTunes was developed to support the iPod. But now everyone has app stores (even if Apple doesn’t want them to use the name). The end result of all this has been to create a whole new market, where new entrepreneurs can develop low-cost software and sell it in bulk across multiple platforms and where those platforms could hardly exist without the app developers. I’m even using an iPhone app (also available on Android) to drive my domestic hi-fi system (from a very respectable English high end designer – not some uber-nerd). The app strengthens the business case for the equipment and makes money for the developer. The app didn’t come with the equipment; I bought it at the app store. App stores themselves are new value propositions for their owners (Apple, etc). In some ways we could regard this as a commercial instantiation of the old Virtual Enterprise idea – an “enterprise” consisting of a loosely coupled, shifting alliance of unrelated legal entities. I like this recent quote from Verna Allee (@vernaallee): “Business models often assume the world revolves around our organization when we really revolve in spiral galaxy ecosystems”. Louisa Leontiades (@MoneyDecisions) is launching a web based, social media driven consultancy, which provides a sort of app store where independent experts can sell tools and frameworks (and yes, get consultancy deals too). Brilliant. And of course all this represents a very scattered field of players, business models and solutions.

How are these developments reflected in Enterprise Architecture? In particular what is the effect on architecture vision and the idea of a target state? I came across another interesting discussion recently. Robert Phipps (@robert_phipps) suggested in a discussion with Tom Graves (@tetradian) that an enterprise consists of many vectors, each with its own direction and velocity and each potentially colliding with and therefore affecting the direction and velocity of the others. Sounds pretty abstract but if you accept the metaphor you can see that the target state is going to be different depending on how the various collisions work out. In a “traditional” enterprise, the power relationships between the various vectors is pretty stable and the influence of external factors limited to macro-economic effects. The metaphor is still valid but the scale of the problem much smaller (less entropy). If what I wrote above is correct, there aren’t too many “traditional” enterprises these days. Tom took the metaphor a bit further and made reference to Quantum theory. That’s also interesting, because it focuses on a probabilistic situation. Architecting for uncertainty. Welcome to the real world. That doesn’t mean there is no value in a target. You have to have some idea what you want to achieve based on what you know now. It just doesn’t need to be too prescriptive. Or put another way, it needs not to be too sensitive to unpredictability. Everything (not just the technology) is likely to have changed before you get there. It certainly increases the relative importance of the first steps on the road to that target. The less particle/vector collisions take place within one step, the more chance of achieving something useful. After each step we re-evaluate both target and roadmap. Iterate. Agile EA. And guess what? This is what we’re supposed to do anyway – design for change, constant delivery of value. No “wait a year and we’ll have something for you”. So if we’ve not been doing that, we’ve not been doing what the enterprise needed from us. All that’s changed is that we will become increasingly irrelevant, if we don’t do it.

Stuart Boardman is a Senior Business Consultant with Getronics Consulting where he co-leads the Enterprise Architecture practice as well as the Cloud Computing solutions group. He is co-lead of The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group’sSecurity for the Cloud and SOA project and a founding member of both The Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group and The Open Group SOA Work Group. Stuart is the author of publications by the Information Security Platform (PvIB) in The Netherlands and of his previous employer, CGI. He is a frequent speaker at conferences on the topics of Cloud, SOA, and Identity.